Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

The new "Hispanic" term introduced in the 70s was the concept that people of Spanish origin are a minority group comparable to black people. That concept didn't exist before.

Correct. This is true. "Hispanic" as "minority" is the thing that Affirmative Action came up with.
But let's be clear: the word "hispanic" was not introduced in the 70s. The word "hispanic" existed and was in use previously to describe people of Spanish descent in the Americas. Pretty much the same usage as today except today there's an ethnic/racial connotation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFP

[/b] have a poor understanding of the diversity found in Latin American

You're correct about this. There's much more diversity in South America than there is the northern half of Mexico. My dad grew up a long time ago in such a place with little knowledge of or interaction with the outside world; the first time he left it was in his mid-20s and he says he was very surprised to encounter black people who spoke Spanish. He simply didn't know up to that point that they had existed.
Contrast this with a place like Colombia where you have a native population, a substantial black population in Cali, Buenaventura and along the coast, regions of the country that were settled by Anglos rather than Spaniards, and the typical Hispanics who a varying degrees of a mixture of Spanish lineage with the above ethnic groups.

Correct. This is true. "Hispanic" as "minority" is the thing that Affirmative Action came up with.
But let's be clear: the word "hispanic" was not introduced in the 70s. The word "hispanic" existed and was in use previously to describe people of Spanish descent in the Americas. Pretty much the same usage as today except today there's an ethnic/racial connotation.

"Hispanic-american" used to be analogous to what the term Anglo-American means. It was a white term for people of European descent. It was not a "people of color" term. Spanish people were WHITE.

What if one day someone arbitrarily invented that all people in the Americas that speak English or have English surnames, irrespective of race, are "Anglos" and then made it an official census minority designation. That would be a completely different term unrelated to what "Anglo" originally meant.

This is how ridiculous "hispanic" was when it was introduced in the 80s. It artificially made people of Spanish origin into official minorities.

It's specifically a continuation of the linguistic part of it. (The other thread was deviating too much into racist stuff.)
I'd like to delve further back into the 1800s and prior regarding the usage of the terminology. For linguistic and historical edification (not for any race/ethnic stuff).

"Hispanic-american" used to be analogous to what the term Anglo-American means. It was a white term for people of European descent. It was not a "people of color" term. Spanish people were WHITE.

What if one day someone arbitrarily invented that all people in the Americas that speak English or have English surnames, irrespective of race, are "Anglos" and then made it an official census minority designation. That would be a completely different term unrelated to what "Anglo" originally meant.

This is how ridiculous "hispanic" was when it was introduced in the 80s. It artificially made people of Spanish origin into official minorities.

You keep repeating this lies like a drunken parrot and do not provide any evidence.
there is plenty of evidence that what you claim is not true and you have failed to provide any document proving your point.

Spanish or hispanic was not a term to refer to white hispanics only.
people of all races considered themself to be Spanish, specially in the later years of the colonies.

you insist with this american non-sence, no one cares about what nomenclature is used in the US.

It's specifically a continuation of the linguistic part of it. (The other thread was deviating too much into racist stuff.)
I'd like to delve further back into the 1800s and prior regarding the usage of the terminology. For linguistic and historical edification (not for any race/ethnic stuff).

i will give you an example, dominicans considered thenself Spanish, independently of race, even when they declared their independence from Spain, the called Republic of the Spanish Haiti in 1822.

the first Dominican National anthem uses the Name Spanish to refer to dominicans, the name dominican became official after 1844

¡ Al arma, españoles !

¡ Volad a la lid !

¡ Decir por todo lo alto del cielo

"Vencer o morir" !

Nobles hijos de Santo Domingo,

y las canas del mísero anciano,

y cuanto hay de sagrado en lo humano

ultrajó con orgullo procaz.

¡ Al arma, españoles !

¡ Volad a la lid !

¡ Tomad por divisa

"Vencer o morir" !

the same can be said about colombia, cuba, venezuela ect, hispanisc they were, hispanics they are.

You keep repeating this lies like a drunken parrot and do not provide any evidence.
there is plenty of evidence that what you claim is not true and you have failed to provide any document proving your point.

I have posted several sources, in this thread alone. You just keep ignoring them.

Older people are really honest about it. They remember when they became "hispanic" arbitrarily and how contrived that was.

“We have these categories: white, black, and now this new, ludicrous category that Richard Nixon invented for me, Hispanic. In 1972, I became Hispanic,” says [Richard] Rodriguez.

Richard Rodriguez became a "hispanic" in 1972. He had never heard of that before then.

Quote:

you insist with this american non-sence, no one cares about what nomenclature is used in the US.

The "hispanic" ethnic minority classification is ONLY used in the United States. It's an American invention. What's profound about the whole "hispanic" concept is that people (like Snapstop) actually came to believe that it was real.

No one before the 80s had ever heard of "Hispanic", not people of Latin American origin themselves - the biggest critics of the "hispanic" term were "hispanics" themselves, but the young generation actually believe that it has always existed for 500 years. LOL

I have posted several sources, in this thread alone. You just keep ignoring them.

The "hispanic" ethnic minority classification is ONLY used in the United States. It's an American invention. What's profound about the whole "hispanic" concept is that people (like Snapstop) actually came to believe that it was real.

No one before the 80s had ever heard of "Hispanic", not people of Latin American origin themselves - the biggest critics of the "hispanic" term were "hispanics" themselves, but the young generation actually believe that it has always existed for 500 years. LOL

That your uneducated rural family where illiterate and never heard of the term is your problem, i have posted dozens of photos of documents proving to you that the term was used widely for hundreds of years to refer to exactly what refers today.

Thats all is pure BS, true than in some southwest towns some people got mad about being categorized as something other than white, latinos where all white back then, (at least in paper) but the term and concept of hispanics is not at an american invention. claiming that that localized and irrelevant opposition overrules the hundreds of years of the use of the term and already stablished identify of the Hispanics is just pure nonsense.

hispanic/latino is an ethnicity not a race. And whatever americans use the term for is irrelevant south the rio grande.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.